Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

The Second Amendment

FactsVsFeelings
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It is this powerful preamble that begins one of the most, if not the most, important documents in American History. A document that has been argued over and reinterpreted time and time again, both by good judges and bad judges. Now centuries later we argue of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.

And today this features most prominently in discussions over the second amendment. We cannot have a discussion of the second without first looking toward the first. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why is this important and what does it have to do with the second amendment? A lot actually.

The idea behind the first amendment is very clear. It"s about protecting your freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceful protest, and petitioning the government. The founders recognized that without these rights governments turn tyrannical and begin to force their own will on the people they govern. The Founding Fathers of this country had just come from a war to end the tyrannical rule of England over the colonies. The states were not soon to forget that fight and made sure to keep the government away from these rights.

This leads into the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To most the reason for this amendment is obvious. Ignoring all the stupid people and their stupid reasons. The second amendment is not some relic of a bygone era. The Founding Fathers recognized that if the government infringes on the first amendment then it falls upon the people to exercise this right to shrug off the government.

There is a reason the second amendment is isn"t listen among the freedoms along with the first amendment. It"s so important it deserves its own. The right of the people to form a militia to fight a government of tyranny was important to the founders and it should be important to the people of today.

We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament. More background checks are more than sufficient. As the comedian Christopher Titus once said "If you have more bullets in the chamber then voices in your head, NO GUN FOR YOU!"

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed. Look for better ways to control the flow of guns instead of trying to shut the water off and mop it up with a tea spoon.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 6:10:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

If Adam Lanza walked into Newtown with a tire iron, 26 people, including 20 children would not be dead.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament.

Who cares? No one is trying to disarm anyone. That is just the right wing conspiracy mantra trying to scare everyone away from an actual intelligent discussion on gun violence. And it is clearly working.

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed.

So this is your idea of the second amendment at work... a society where law enforcement cannot enforce the laws? Really?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 6:56:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 6:10:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

If Adam Lanza walked into Newtown with a tire iron, 26 people, including 20 children would not be dead.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament.

Who cares? No one is trying to disarm anyone. That is just the right wing conspiracy mantra trying to scare everyone away from an actual intelligent discussion on gun violence. And it is clearly working.

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed.

So this is your idea of the second amendment at work... a society where law enforcement cannot enforce the laws? Really?

All good points. The only point I would add is about how we look at each other on this debate. It is so far apart that strawmaning is way to common.

What I want, and discuss most often on gun threads, is a change in the culture.

* Gun rights people seem frightened. Frightened of imaginary dangers. Of city's, of thugs, of every bump in the night, and super frightened of something that will never happen - the big bad government taking all their guns.

* Gun control people are pushing laws that are largely ineffective. We need to understand that guns are a reality and as stupid as it is to choose to have a gun in your home, many other people will have one.

Collectively we (both sides of this argument) need to stop ruining the same script. The gun rights side should listen very carefully to this point. The demographic facts are stacked badly for them. Percentages of gun owners is on a steady tract DOWN. It is they who need to fix their narrative or risk loosing just by democracy working its course.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 7:01:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 6:10:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

If Adam Lanza walked into Newtown with a tire iron, 26 people, including 20 children would not be dead.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament.

Who cares? No one is trying to disarm anyone. That is just the right wing conspiracy mantra trying to scare everyone away from an actual intelligent discussion on gun violence. And it is clearly working.

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed.

So this is your idea of the second amendment at work... a society where law enforcement cannot enforce the laws? Really?

I believe you are quite mistaken when you say, "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I can kind of understand your confusion, they don't call it disarming or infringing, they call it "Common Sense Gun Control" or something similar.

I realize that labels are something you seem to need to discredit a person or that person's argument, but it makes you look like you don't have an original thought of your own.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 8:26:48 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 7:01:11 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/6/2016 6:10:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

If Adam Lanza walked into Newtown with a tire iron, 26 people, including 20 children would not be dead.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament.

Who cares? No one is trying to disarm anyone. That is just the right wing conspiracy mantra trying to scare everyone away from an actual intelligent discussion on gun violence. And it is clearly working.

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed.

So this is your idea of the second amendment at work... a society where law enforcement cannot enforce the laws? Really?

I believe you are quite mistaken when you say, "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I can kind of understand your confusion, they don't call it disarming or infringing, they call it "Common Sense Gun Control" or something similar.

Show me one measure that was supported by any significant portion of gun control advocates which disarms the population. I'll wait.

I realize that labels are something you seem to need to discredit a person or that person's argument, but it makes you look like you don't have an original thought of your own.

I have presented nothing but original thoughts, and not one label. This makes you look like you have no intent at having a rational discussion, and intend to deflect rather than respond.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 9:52:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 8:26:48 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:01:11 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/6/2016 6:10:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

If Adam Lanza walked into Newtown with a tire iron, 26 people, including 20 children would not be dead.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament.

Who cares? No one is trying to disarm anyone. That is just the right wing conspiracy mantra trying to scare everyone away from an actual intelligent discussion on gun violence. And it is clearly working.

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed.

So this is your idea of the second amendment at work... a society where law enforcement cannot enforce the laws? Really?

I believe you are quite mistaken when you say, "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I can kind of understand your confusion, they don't call it disarming or infringing, they call it "Common Sense Gun Control" or something similar.

Show me one measure that was supported by any significant portion of gun control advocates which disarms the population. I'll wait.

I realize that labels are something you seem to need to discredit a person or that person's argument, but it makes you look like you don't have an original thought of your own.

I have presented nothing but original thoughts, and not one label. This makes you look like you have no intent at having a rational discussion, and intend to deflect rather than respond.

You'll wait? After changing the topic and asking me to provide proof for the changed topic, you'll wait? Keep waiting then. However, I will leave a link for the original subject of contention that "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I am sure you can find more, if you didn't actually already believe you were full of crap, i.e., you were interested in the truth.

https://www.youtube.com...
watch?v=U6fNShSY_Iw
DNC Delegate Mary Bayer Explains the meaning of 'Common Sense Gun Legislation"

You don't use labels? What would you call "...right wing conspiracy mantra..." ? Sounds like a few labels thrown around there. Seriously makes me think you are more of a parrot than a critical thinking human being.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 10:11:46 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It is this powerful preamble that begins one of the most, if not the most, important documents in American History. A document that has been argued over and reinterpreted time and time again, both by good judges and bad judges. Now centuries later we argue of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.

And today this features most prominently in discussions over the second amendment. We cannot have a discussion of the second without first looking toward the first. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why is this important and what does it have to do with the second amendment? A lot actually.

The idea behind the first amendment is very clear. It"s about protecting your freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceful protest, and petitioning the government. The founders recognized that without these rights governments turn tyrannical and begin to force their own will on the people they govern. The Founding Fathers of this country had just come from a war to end the tyrannical rule of England over the colonies. The states were not soon to forget that fight and made sure to keep the government away from these rights.

This leads into the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To most the reason for this amendment is obvious. Ignoring all the stupid people and their stupid reasons. The second amendment is not some relic of a bygone era. The Founding Fathers recognized that if the government infringes on the first amendment then it falls upon the people to exercise this right to shrug off the government.

There is a reason the second amendment is isn"t listen among the freedoms along with the first amendment. It"s so important it deserves its own. The right of the people to form a militia to fight a government of tyranny was important to the founders and it should be important to the people of today.

We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament. More background checks are more than sufficient. As the comedian Christopher Titus once said "If you have more bullets in the chamber then voices in your head, NO GUN FOR YOU!"

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed. Look for better ways to control the flow of guns instead of trying to shut the water off and mop it up with a tea spoon.

Police will not confiscate your guns (without due process) because they are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Saying that one's personally owned firearms keep one free from our own constitutional republican government is merely a claim born of ignorance of history and relatively recent gun fetishism.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 11:17:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It is this powerful preamble that begins one of the most, if not the most, important documents in American History. A document that has been argued over and reinterpreted time and time again, both by good judges and bad judges. Now centuries later we argue of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.

And today this features most prominently in discussions over the second amendment. We cannot have a discussion of the second without first looking toward the first. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why is this important and what does it have to do with the second amendment? A lot actually.

The idea behind the first amendment is very clear. It"s about protecting your freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceful protest, and petitioning the government. The founders recognized that without these rights governments turn tyrannical and begin to force their own will on the people they govern. The Founding Fathers of this country had just come from a war to end the tyrannical rule of England over the colonies. The states were not soon to forget that fight and made sure to keep the government away from these rights.

This leads into the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To most the reason for this amendment is obvious. Ignoring all the stupid people and their stupid reasons. The second amendment is not some relic of a bygone era. The Founding Fathers recognized that if the government infringes on the first amendment then it falls upon the people to exercise this right to shrug off the government.

There is a reason the second amendment is isn"t listen among the freedoms along with the first amendment. It"s so important it deserves its own. The right of the people to form a militia to fight a government of tyranny was important to the founders and it should be important to the people of today.

We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament. More background checks are more than sufficient. As the comedian Christopher Titus once said "If you have more bullets in the chamber then voices in your head, NO GUN FOR YOU!"

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed. Look for better ways to control the flow of guns instead of trying to shut the water off and mop it up with a tea spoon.

I would like to emphasize one of your points regarding police officers and gun confiscation. Actually, maybe even redirect your point. I was never afraid of taking guns from violent criminals, at least not to the point of not doing it. Fear is something you train to overcome. But your general statement is true-police officers will not confiscate firearms from those who have committed no crime other than exercising their right to own a firearm. What many don't understand about police officers is that we actually love our country and its people. Many of us have said publicly if that time comes we will refuse, and we will keep our jobs until we lose them in court. We take an oath to uphold the laws of our respective state and communities, and the constitution of the United States (which is supreme over any law).
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 2:35:51 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 9:52:53 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/6/2016 8:26:48 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:01:11 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/6/2016 6:10:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

If Adam Lanza walked into Newtown with a tire iron, 26 people, including 20 children would not be dead.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament.

Who cares? No one is trying to disarm anyone. That is just the right wing conspiracy mantra trying to scare everyone away from an actual intelligent discussion on gun violence. And it is clearly working.

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed.

So this is your idea of the second amendment at work... a society where law enforcement cannot enforce the laws? Really?

I believe you are quite mistaken when you say, "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I can kind of understand your confusion, they don't call it disarming or infringing, they call it "Common Sense Gun Control" or something similar.

Show me one measure that was supported by any significant portion of gun control advocates which disarms the population. I'll wait.

I realize that labels are something you seem to need to discredit a person or that person's argument, but it makes you look like you don't have an original thought of your own.

I have presented nothing but original thoughts, and not one label. This makes you look like you have no intent at having a rational discussion, and intend to deflect rather than respond.

You'll wait? After changing the topic and asking me to provide proof for the changed topic, you'll wait? Keep waiting then. However, I will leave a link for the original subject of contention that "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I am sure you can find more, if you didn't actually already believe you were full of crap, i.e., you were interested in the truth.

Responding to a claim made by you is not changing the subject. If the idea of supporting your own claims bothers you that much then don't make any.

https://www.youtube.com...
watch?v=U6fNShSY_Iw
DNC Delegate Mary Bayer Explains the meaning of 'Common Sense Gun Legislation"

One (apparently highly edited) video of one delegate who uses the word "ban" in a discussion with someone who is clearly trying to bait her does nothing to address what I asked you. Let's try this again...

Show me one measure that was supported by any significant portion of gun control advocates which disarms the population.

You don't use labels? What would you call "...right wing conspiracy mantra..." ? Sounds like a few labels thrown around there.

No, it sounds like a description of the nonsense that is constantly being propagated by the political right. Descriptions require the usage of words. That is not what we are talking about when we talk about the usage of labels.

Seriously makes me think you are more of a parrot than a critical thinking human being.

You will think whatever you want because you apparently prefer to avoid facts and logic.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 3:18:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 2:35:51 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 9:52:53 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/6/2016 8:26:48 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:01:11 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/6/2016 6:10:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

If Adam Lanza walked into Newtown with a tire iron, 26 people, including 20 children would not be dead.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament.

Who cares? No one is trying to disarm anyone. That is just the right wing conspiracy mantra trying to scare everyone away from an actual intelligent discussion on gun violence. And it is clearly working.

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed.

So this is your idea of the second amendment at work... a society where law enforcement cannot enforce the laws? Really?

I believe you are quite mistaken when you say, "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I can kind of understand your confusion, they don't call it disarming or infringing, they call it "Common Sense Gun Control" or something similar.

Show me one measure that was supported by any significant portion of gun control advocates which disarms the population. I'll wait.

I realize that labels are something you seem to need to discredit a person or that person's argument, but it makes you look like you don't have an original thought of your own.

I have presented nothing but original thoughts, and not one label. This makes you look like you have no intent at having a rational discussion, and intend to deflect rather than respond.

You'll wait? After changing the topic and asking me to provide proof for the changed topic, you'll wait? Keep waiting then. However, I will leave a link for the original subject of contention that "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I am sure you can find more, if you didn't actually already believe you were full of crap, i.e., you were interested in the truth.

Responding to a claim made by you is not changing the subject. If the idea of supporting your own claims bothers you that much then don't make any.

https://www.youtube.com...
watch?v=U6fNShSY_Iw
DNC Delegate Mary Bayer Explains the meaning of 'Common Sense Gun Legislation"

One (apparently highly edited) video of one delegate who uses the word "ban" in a discussion with someone who is clearly trying to bait her does nothing to address what I asked you. Let's try this again...

Show me one measure that was supported by any significant portion of gun control advocates which disarms the population.

You don't use labels? What would you call "...right wing conspiracy mantra..." ? Sounds like a few labels thrown around there.

No, it sounds like a description of the nonsense that is constantly being propagated by the political right. Descriptions require the usage of words. That is not what we are talking about when we talk about the usage of labels.

Seriously makes me think you are more of a parrot than a critical thinking human being.

You will think whatever you want because you apparently prefer to avoid facts and logic.

I consider you putting words into my mouth, changing the subject. I've not claimed anything about a measure or a significant portion of gun control advocates (at least not in this thread). Again, because you seem to be missing it, I have claimed that you were incorrect when you said, "No one is trying to disarm anyone". And I have already proven that claim.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 12:33:28 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 3:18:44 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:35:51 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 9:52:53 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/6/2016 8:26:48 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:01:11 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/6/2016 6:10:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

If Adam Lanza walked into Newtown with a tire iron, 26 people, including 20 children would not be dead.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament.

Who cares? No one is trying to disarm anyone. That is just the right wing conspiracy mantra trying to scare everyone away from an actual intelligent discussion on gun violence. And it is clearly working.

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed.

So this is your idea of the second amendment at work... a society where law enforcement cannot enforce the laws? Really?

I believe you are quite mistaken when you say, "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I can kind of understand your confusion, they don't call it disarming or infringing, they call it "Common Sense Gun Control" or something similar.

Show me one measure that was supported by any significant portion of gun control advocates which disarms the population. I'll wait.

I realize that labels are something you seem to need to discredit a person or that person's argument, but it makes you look like you don't have an original thought of your own.

I have presented nothing but original thoughts, and not one label. This makes you look like you have no intent at having a rational discussion, and intend to deflect rather than respond.

You'll wait? After changing the topic and asking me to provide proof for the changed topic, you'll wait? Keep waiting then. However, I will leave a link for the original subject of contention that "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I am sure you can find more, if you didn't actually already believe you were full of crap, i.e., you were interested in the truth.

Responding to a claim made by you is not changing the subject. If the idea of supporting your own claims bothers you that much then don't make any.

https://www.youtube.com...
watch?v=U6fNShSY_Iw
DNC Delegate Mary Bayer Explains the meaning of 'Common Sense Gun Legislation"

One (apparently highly edited) video of one delegate who uses the word "ban" in a discussion with someone who is clearly trying to bait her does nothing to address what I asked you. Let's try this again...

Show me one measure that was supported by any significant portion of gun control advocates which disarms the population.

You don't use labels? What would you call "...right wing conspiracy mantra..." ? Sounds like a few labels thrown around there.

No, it sounds like a description of the nonsense that is constantly being propagated by the political right. Descriptions require the usage of words. That is not what we are talking about when we talk about the usage of labels.

Seriously makes me think you are more of a parrot than a critical thinking human being.

You will think whatever you want because you apparently prefer to avoid facts and logic.

I consider you putting words into my mouth, changing the subject. I've not claimed anything about a measure or a significant portion of gun control advocates (at least not in this thread). Again, because you seem to be missing it, I have claimed that you were incorrect when you said, "No one is trying to disarm anyone". And I have already proven that claim.

No, you have not remotely proven anything I have said to be wrong.

Your response is a perfect demonstration of what stops people of opposing viewpoints from having a rational conversation. When I said "No one is trying to disarm anyone"... I was making a hyperbolic statement. Anyone with a reading level above third grade and an interest in hearing my thoughts would have figured that out. You have the former, so the latter is clearly the problem. Stop getting hung up on trigger words and this will go a lot easier.

What I was clearly saying is that the political left on gun violence is not out to disarm anyone. The political left is trying to minimize gun violence by outlawing completely unnecessary privileges which lead to loss of life. Do you support the idea that everyone should have to undergo a background check before buying a gun (like 90% of the country)? Do you support the idea that those on the terrorist watch list should not be allowed to purchase guns? If so then you to support gun control to some extent at least.

But instead of getting to these questions we're sitting here talking about nonsense. You claimed that gun control advocates are trying to disarm the population and I asked you to support that assertion... You call that changing the subject. I point out how your rhetoric is riddled with right wing conspiracy mantra, you accuse me of just using labels and not thinking for myself. This is just stupid.

Now if you have anything to say about the second amendment and the criticisms I have laid against your position I would be happy to hear it. Otherwise I'm done here.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:06:49 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/9/2016 12:33:28 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/8/2016 3:18:44 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:35:51 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 9:52:53 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/6/2016 8:26:48 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:01:11 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/6/2016 6:10:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:42:57 AM, FactsVsFeelings wrote:
We can claim that guns hurt people, but the sad fact of the matter is that violent people will do violent things in violent ways with or without guns. A tire iron is no less deadly then a gun in the hands of a determined psycho.

If Adam Lanza walked into Newtown with a tire iron, 26 people, including 20 children would not be dead.

Make no mistake, I am in favor of gun control, but not in disarmament.

Who cares? No one is trying to disarm anyone. That is just the right wing conspiracy mantra trying to scare everyone away from an actual intelligent discussion on gun violence. And it is clearly working.

Thankfully because of the second amendment and all the responsible people who do own guns, disarmament will never happen. Police will not try to confiscate your guns because..well..you have a gun! This has been proven in Colorado where there is a lot of gun restriction. Sheriffs will not enforce the law because they don"t want police officers to be harmed.

So this is your idea of the second amendment at work... a society where law enforcement cannot enforce the laws? Really?

I believe you are quite mistaken when you say, "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I can kind of understand your confusion, they don't call it disarming or infringing, they call it "Common Sense Gun Control" or something similar.

Show me one measure that was supported by any significant portion of gun control advocates which disarms the population. I'll wait.

I realize that labels are something you seem to need to discredit a person or that person's argument, but it makes you look like you don't have an original thought of your own.

I have presented nothing but original thoughts, and not one label. This makes you look like you have no intent at having a rational discussion, and intend to deflect rather than respond.

You'll wait? After changing the topic and asking me to provide proof for the changed topic, you'll wait? Keep waiting then. However, I will leave a link for the original subject of contention that "No one is trying to disarm anyone". I am sure you can find more, if you didn't actually already believe you were full of crap, i.e., you were interested in the truth.

Responding to a claim made by you is not changing the subject. If the idea of supporting your own claims bothers you that much then don't make any.

https://www.youtube.com...
watch?v=U6fNShSY_Iw
DNC Delegate Mary Bayer Explains the meaning of 'Common Sense Gun Legislation"

One (apparently highly edited) video of one delegate who uses the word "ban" in a discussion with someone who is clearly trying to bait her does nothing to address what I asked you. Let's try this again...

Show me one measure that was supported by any significant portion of gun control advocates which disarms the population.

You don't use labels? What would you call "...right wing conspiracy mantra..." ? Sounds like a few labels thrown around there.

No, it sounds like a description of the nonsense that is constantly being propagated by the political right. Descriptions require the usage of words. That is not what we are talking about when we talk about the usage of labels.

Seriously makes me think you are more of a parrot than a critical thinking human being.

You will think whatever you want because you apparently prefer to avoid facts and logic.

I consider you putting words into my mouth, changing the subject. I've not claimed anything about a measure or a significant portion of gun control advocates (at least not in this thread). Again, because you seem to be missing it, I have claimed that you were incorrect when you said, "No one is trying to disarm anyone". And I have already proven that claim.

No, you have not remotely proven anything I have said to be wrong.

Your response is a perfect demonstration of what stops people of opposing viewpoints from having a rational conversation. When I said "No one is trying to disarm anyone"... I was making a hyperbolic statement. Anyone with a reading level above third grade and an interest in hearing my thoughts would have figured that out. You have the former, so the latter is clearly the problem. Stop getting hung up on trigger words and this will go a lot easier.

What I was clearly saying is that the political left on gun violence is not out to disarm anyone. The political left is trying to minimize gun violence by outlawing completely unnecessary privileges which lead to loss of life. Do you support the idea that everyone should have to undergo a background check before buying a gun (like 90% of the country)? Do you support the idea that those on the terrorist watch list should not be allowed to purchase guns? If so then you to support gun control to some extent at least.

But instead of getting to these questions we're sitting here talking about nonsense. You claimed that gun control advocates are trying to disarm the population and I asked you to support that assertion... You call that changing the subject. I point out how your rhetoric is riddled with right wing conspiracy mantra, you accuse me of just using labels and not thinking for myself. This is just stupid.

Now if you have anything to say about the second amendment and the criticisms I have laid against your position I would be happy to hear it. Otherwise I'm done here.

I think you are done here then. Because you are still putting words into my mouth. And you seem to lack the ability to say what you mean.